Posted
by
Soulskill
on Monday September 22, 2008 @02:09PM
from the how-generous dept.

Nom du Keyboard points out an Ars Technica report that the Sony Video Store on the Playstation Network is running some rather restrictive DRM. When purchasing movies, users are allowed just one download — even if they delete the movie to make space and want to download it again on the same machine. A Sony representative told Ars that users could be issued an extra download as a "one-time courtesy" with help from customer support. Quoting:
"When we're discussing a system that seems to release new hardware configurations every few months and a company that actively encourages you to swap hard drives yourself, it appears users are going to run into problems if they ever decide they want to switch out their hard drive or even upgrade into a larger system; the information on the back-up utility makes it clear that video content can't be moved over to new system, although new hard drives should be safe. Sony claims that the PS3 is operating on a 10-year timeline: is one extra download, which you need to contact customer service to apply for, good enough for the next decade?"

In this particular case, you're right, that shouldn't have been made redundant. That said, it's totally possible for a first post to be redundant. Here are a few examples:

"I just want a cell phone that only makes calls!"

"Does it run Linux?"

"Video game companies do this because you're all thieves!"

"...frickin shark!"

"George Lucas sucks."

"I hate the iPhone, so everybody else should too."... and so on. There's a lot of repetitive noise here that doesn't become fresh just because it's in a different thread. This doesn't apply in your case, but it could a year from now when somebody carbon copies your post when another company has a policy like this.

Feedback (from what I understand/believe) isn't just a way to dole out points for the person posting the content. It's a way users can filter the comments to a particular story, for browsing. If there's a particularly heated discussion, and there are hundreds of comments, then I may wish to browse the comments at +4, so that nothing below that is shown. I would like to include AC comments in that group, should they be seen by 4 others as insightful.

Depends, do you own the copy or did you license the copy.-If you *own the copy* then you are screwed since you are allowed to do as you wish with the copy short of making copies of it. That includes trashing/destroying the disc.-If you *license the copy* then you can get a replacement media copy or even copy another Good disc but keep the defective one as proof of license.

I remember back in the day of great game companies like SSI that if your media became corrupt or unusable you could send them back the old disk and they would replace it at a pretty reasonable fee. I think it was 5 bucks to save your 50 dollar game. I don't think anyone around still does this today.

For my part, I stick with Steam. Unlimited downloads. Hell, even if they charged me a buck to cover bandwidth and storage I wouldn't feel bad for a 50 dollar game. I've never had an issue with Steam and as long

If I purchase a copyrighted "something" at a store, I dang well expect that it would work on more than just the one machine I used it first in. If it's compatible, it should run in it.

I also expect that should I have to replace it more than once, the item still work.

Additionally, I expect that if someone is selling me something that restricts my rights as the purchaser under the cover of attempting to protect their own as the copyright holder, that those restrictions are reasonable and not simply in place as a surrogate method of forcing me to buy more copies of the item.

For the most part, the only thing DRM accomplishes is that, forcing the 'legitimate' consumer to purchase ever more copies of a work they already own copies.

For the most part, the only thing DRM accomplishes is that, forcing the 'legitimate' consumer to purchase ever more copies of a work they already own copies.

You don't own it. It's hard to argue that you even own a license to it.

It is quite a funny concept that anything protected by authentication-based DRM can ever be "sold", since your use of what you "bought" is entirely controlled by someone else.

All that you really "buy" when you pay for DRM'd content is the right to keep asking, "dear rights holder, can you please tell my device it's okay for me to watch this?", and after that you have to cross your fingers. In most cases the answer is going to be "yes", or the economy of the system will fail massively. However, nothing guarantees that the answer will be "yes", and here we are discussing just one instance where perhaps it should be but isn't.

I agree with the OP, nobody should be allowed to misrepresent a DRM-encumbered transaction as a sale. You don't have most of the rights, use-wise or other, that are normally associated with a sale.

That's not the issue here, the circumstances don't match.. If you buy something from a store you get a hard copy of the cd/dvd. You break it, tough luck.

When it comes to pc's, it's often not us that break them, or you want to upgrade or you've ran out of space. With this method they force you to lose your purchases with no possible way to transfer them, back them up to some form of removable media (the normal way people create more space on their computer) or redownload them. If you can't back them up and you have no space you HAVE to delete them, they are giving you no choice in the matter. These situations are unavoidable with a pc and if you provide a download service you should at least either provide unlimited downloads of your material, or you should be able to back them up easily (and legally).

Well, that and there's a bit of a manufacturing cost involved in a tangible object. I don't feel bad shelling out money for an item I can touch, fell or burn if I see fit. Digital data has little cost in duplicating and maintaining in the overall scope of things. It also gets cheaper every day that goes by, so that would mean that music/movie costs should be going down as time goes on at a much steeper rate than a tangible item. (After you pay the artists, transfer costs, and the electric bill, the data

Except bandwidth isn't free. How many 4GB downloads should I allocate per customer? Should I factor that into the cost of the item? When you purchase something, should I factor in a lifetime of bandwidth usage by the customer?

Of course, you hit the nail on the head - you must be able to backup. Not having a backup (and this is probably the case given that the PS3 is encrypted) is stupid. Although, I think given "online activation" DRM seems to be the rage these days I don't think they have a problem wit

So if you buy something from a store, and then throw it away, the store is obligated to give you another item?

If I buy something from a store; for example, a CD, I expect it to work both in my car and in my home. In fact I expect it to work in my laptop too, and if I take it to a friends house and he wants to hear it I expect to work in his car/home and laptop too.

Considering that the item doesn't physically exist, you can't move it somewhere else, and is downloaded, yeah- this actually constitutes more of a rental than a real purchase. Every other place that sells you a downloadable allow you to download it umpteen times if you like.

Well Sony are the makers of Securom, and also made a DRM for DVD's (ARCOS) that rendered the disks unplayable on their own devices. I bought a movie with ARCOS for my nephews and it wouldn't play. I had to take said DVD and make a rip of it purely so they could watch the movie I bought for them on their Sony DVD player.

So crap like this no longer surprises me and is why, despite being a huge Metal Gear and Gran Turismo fan, I will not be buying a PS3.

Well, everybody's allowed to discuss whatever you want, and don't let this post stop you from discussing the difficulties of geranium growing in the mountains of Afghanistan, but the grandparent and I are discussing whether it's "OK" if "they" "clearly mark this as a rental". I'm saying it's not "OK". Sony expects us to pay for protecting their business from unlicensed copying, but they aren't providing the social gains that are meant to be their part of the bargain. I guess if they made sure that all l

The point is not that people want stuff for free. If you think that you're either being deliberately obtuse or are ignorant. The point is the scope and extent of copyright, especially in regards to consumer "purchases" which are actually just licenses according to "the man". There has long been an argument by "intellectual property" owners that we, the consumer, are not actually buying anything when we purchase a CD or game (fortunately book publishers do completely admit that when you buy a book, you can do what you want with it). The trouble is, if you're buying a license to use said music or software for any period of time, you should know your fucking rights beforehand. This is absolutely impossible now for the end user with the licenses and EULAs etc. Legalese has made it impossible for end users to make informed choices about purchases - the reason everyone just clicks yes is because they simply do not have enough time on this earth to read everything they agree to. Any kind of restrictive license aimed at end users is inherently shit purely because end users will not read the terms.

Video and DVD rental is obviously different because everyone already knows the basic terms of the rental. However, unreasonable terms on DVD rental (like, for example only being able to play it on one machine) are not expected.

I don't know any service in which one purchases content to be stores on you own media where a second download is allowed. Now, if one is not allowed to backup the content, or transfer it to another device, then that may be considered more restrictive than normal.

The entire point of DRM content is that the content is restricted to approved playback devices. Allowing multiple downloads to the only approved device is not the same as allowing someone to download it willy-nilly onto fifty computers.

The point this article is making is the lack of options to re-obtain your content, as you are not allowed to backup the media, nor can you store it physically on any kind of medium other than the disk in your playstation.

I expect out of Sony what I believe my money is worth. Why does Sony expect me to buy something so hobbled when I'll almost certainly be able to buy the same thing in a format that isn't so deliberately broken?

Why would anyone expect Sony to allow their bandwidth to be re-used for free?

Because a direct competitor (XBOX 360) allows me to download multiple times for anything I purchased. In fact, I have bought things, deleted them, and then when surfing the XBOX Live area and looking at those games it asks me if I want to download them AGAIN.

.. because once you've downloaded your music, you can't get it again unless you badger Apple. Couple that with the fact that iTunes doesn't officially support taking music off your iPod back onto iTunes and you've got a system that's a real pain in the arse.

But I can easily back up my music and video downloads to an external hard drive or DVD archive. When I want to restore them, I just load them back onto the machine.

For that matter, I can copy videos between my computers and still play them. It's true, those computers have to be "authorized" by Apple, up to a max of 5 computers (which I can reset/change each year). But I can still do it.

So Apple doesn't do *exactly* the same. It's DRM, and all DRM is bad. But Apple's doesn't leave quite the s

iTunes doesn't lock your files down to a single machine though - they lock them to an account which can follow you effectively forever. Between computers, between devices, etc. Your account always is good to play your files. This allows you the specific freedom of BACKING UP your information.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't like Apple's DRM either, but it HAS been the least problematic I've seen. Amazon Unbox for Video for example lets you play a "purchased" file on 2 machines only, and it has a terrible little Windows service that runs in the background to "authorize" your playback with the mothership. If that service screws up then your media files simply aren't going to play (and I've just deleted the 3 episodes of Battlestar Galactica I bought from them after all the problems I had with it).

I think with Sony, the problem is that you CAN'T make a backup of the file. You can with Apple, and you can with non-DRM'd media. As a matter of fact, I'd be fine with it if they didn't allow redownloads AT ALL if they didn't include DRM. I don't expect the store to give me a new copy of a DVD that I sit on or leave in a hot car, so I don't expect a new copy of a file that I lost either. HOWEVER, I do want the ability to make backup copies of that data so that I can be secure in the knowledge that my entire movie or song collection isn't hinging on a single hard drive crash.

The problem ALL this hits though, is that it's getting too device specific. If I want to play a DVD I buy it. I've been through 3 TV's and about 5 DVD players since I started buying DVD's. Now, digital downloads are looking to be the next bid thing, but look at the current scene: Xbox360 sells movies and TV shows, but they play only on an Xbox360. Apple does the same, but they play only through your computer or an AppleTV. Sony is now doing the same, but they play only through a PS3. Amazon Unbox does it - and they play only through Windows computers or a compatible Tivo.

How many disjointed systems is it going to take for them to realize that this isn't going to work? If I buy a new awesome media player box I want it to play EVERYTHING. I don't want to have to switch devices over and over as I flip between different movies I purchased on various systems. These devices need to operate with a common format. The only way to make this all work long term is to kill DRM. A user needs to be able to "own" and move about their files as easily as they once shifted around their DVD discs or VHS cassettes.

The main difference is that it's trivially easy to back up your own iTunes library. Especially so if you own a recent Mac, where you can get an external hard drive and use Time Machine. Also, iTunes will allow you to copy your iTunes-purchased music from your iPod to your computer, but it will essentially replace your existing iTunes library. That in addition to being allowed to copy your iTunes purchased music/video to 5 different computers.

The main difference is that it's trivially easy to back up your own iTunes library.

From a customer-service perspective it seems to me that it would be even easier if Apple just supported re-downloads. Compare all the effort of each person individually backing up their shit versus the effort for apple to enable the feature and then support the occasional re-download.

.. because once you've downloaded your music, you can't get it again unless you badger Apple. Couple that with the fact that iTunes doesn't officially support taking music off your iPod back onto iTunes and you've got a system that's a real pain in the arse.

Can I download another copy of my MP3 files after the initial purchase?Your Amazon MP3 Music purchases can only be downloaded once. After you have successfully downloaded the file to your computer at the time of purchase, we recommend that you create a backup copy.

We are currently unable to replace any purchased files that you delete or lose due to a system or disk error. If you encounter a problem with an MP3 file immediately after purchase, please click the Customer Service butto

My girlfriend recently switched to a new laptop. She plugged her iPod in and it informed her that there were purchased tracks on it, and whether she would like to transfer them to iTunes. iTunes copied them right over.

I recently somehow lost a few tracks I had downloaded and didn't have on an iPod. I clicked "check for downloads" and it redownloaded the songs I had lost with no further ado.

Couple that with the fact that iTunes doesn't officially support taking music off your iPod back onto iTunes

For purchased music it does. If you hook up an iPod that belongs with your computer's library that contains purchased songs you don't have on your computer it will ask you if you want to move them to your computer from your iPod.

actually, you can back this up the same way you back up iTunes purchases - you just have to record to video stream. It is exactly the same as copying an apple AAC file to cd, and then re-ripping it as.mp3, or copying it to another hard drive and having to authenticate it over there, too.

I don't know what the prices are at the Sony Video Store - but if they are any substantial fraction of the cost of the physical media, then you should just buy the disc instead.

With the DRM on DVD a defeated minion of darkness, and BluRay certain to go the same way, the format with the most longevity, barring manufacturing defects, is a pressed ROM disc. You can be sure that you will be able to read, transcode, format-shift and enjoy these to your hearts content.

Not so for something that vanishes in a puff of virtual smoke when some vital component of your console goes "phut".

Look at the other services out there. Movies on the Xbox live service expire and disable themselves after two weeks (yes, I know, it's different for TV shows). With Netflix, you can't watch anymore after you stop paying the monthly fee.

This really isn't news. Media distribution companies are out of touch with how consumers want to purchase and use their products. We've known this forever. This article is just flamebait to get the PS3 and 360 fanboys at each other.

Its news because not only is it DRM, but its poorly implemented. Steam and the 360 let you delete stuff you've bought and download it later. I can go to a friend's house, log in to my account on his xbox, and I'm able to download things I've bought.

The only reason this isn't really big news is because its something they can fix fairly easily.

I can't comment on the Xbox live service, but with Netflix you aren't BUYING a movie, you're paying to watch it (as part of the standard monthly fee). If you are not longer paying for the service, you can no longer view the Instant View movies.
With this Sony service you're buying a digital-only copy that can't be moved and can only be downloaded one additional time.

With Netflix, you can't watch anymore after you stop paying the monthly fee.

With Netflix, you know you're RENTING the movie, and have to give back (i.e.: lose access to, returning DVDs and stopping any streaming media) any material they've loaned you after you stop paying the monthly fee. While you _are_ paying your fee, you can hang onto the material (keep the DVD, play streaming media) and watch it on ANY platform you like.

This in contrast with Sony SELLING the movie, but you can only download it to a sin

I intend to avoid downloadable content until it's at least as flexible as physical media. I want the ability to move my copy of a movie from machine to machine, and to lend it, give it or sell it to somebody else once I'm done with it. A one-time download is a sucker's deal.

I like the idea of having music and video on a media server in the home, and I like the idea of having MP3s that I can load onto a player when I'm about to go on a long flight. But I want to rip (in the format of my choosing) that stuff from a shiny disc that I can physically hold in my hands and store in a box in my basement.

No one learns anything from Valve/Steam. I was against Steam initially, but it's seductive because it's just so damn easy. All I have to do is log in, and it brings my games to me.

The lesson there to be learned is, if DRM makes your life easier, then people are more willing to put up with it. But if it makes your life harder? If it exists to screw you out of what you've already bought? Screw that.

Until the content providers remember that their supposed job is to provide CONTENT, then they're doomed to a declining market share and consumer antipathy.

I was against Steam initially, but it's seductive because it's just so damn easy. All I have to do is log in, and it brings my games to me.

The nice thing with steam is that it is basically unlimited downloads/installs. Don't need to keep track of a disc or anything - just remember your username/password to Steam. You can even download the Steam client. And then all the games you've purchased on Steam are right there, ready to be (re)downloaded and (re)installed.

Very handy. It actually becomes more convenient, if you have a good Internet connection, to buy through Steam.

Of course there are lots of issues if you don't have working Internet...

I, too, was initially opposed to Steam. I can deal with it now, and can even appreciate some of its benefits. I first got a Steam account so I could keep on playing old CS and TFC many years ago. Now, on the same Steam account I play TF2, BioShock, CSS, DoDS, on a newer PC. I really like the fact that I can still download and play ALL the old Valve games I ever owned (right back to HL, Blue Shift, etc...) on any computer I have now, or will have in the future. Now THAT'S content management that doesn't

Yeah, I'm not a fan of DRM no matter what, but if you must have DRM, I think Steam is a pretty good model. As you mentioned, the DRM lets them makes it so they don't really have to worry about restricting downloads or copies. I broke down and bought the Orange Box on Steam, and it is kind of nice that I can have it installed on any machine I want, and be able to download it to additional machines at any time, the only restriction being that I have to sign in before I play it. That paired with assurances

The ability to gift the games was a good feature, and if they implemented a method by which you could gift individual games (rather than your entire steam account) I would be 100% for Steam.

One thing that I greatly dislike regarding games is the publisher's insistance that you are purchasing a non-transferrable license. With physical media, there was little that they could do short of trying to limit installs by including phone-home code (which means I'd never purchase that game). So you could loan the di

Some are bad...SecuROM is absuively bad, and similar to what you describe.

But a lot of games with extensive add-ons have to talk to the internet a lot. If you buy WoW, you can just set up an account, add the keys, and download the entire game...This'll take a bit, even with their bittorrent interface.

Steam is basically the same thing applied to non-MMOs. You make a steam account, you attach your games to it, and anywhere you log in with that account, you can download and install your games. No more keeping

DVDs are dying! Blu-Ray is going nowhere! Why would anyone buy a real physical disk when for almost as much money you could use your limited bandwith allowance downloading a copy which will last unti the hard drive, or the console dies. Oh, and you don't get the extras. Erm, and it's unclear what happens if something goes wrong with the download. Oh, yeah, and you can probably download about 10 before you have to delete one.

Sony is one of the few companies that does both media and electronics. There have been many questioning which branch of the company has more clout, and speculation that it would all revolve around DRM.

I backed up everything to an old 10GB drive I had, and swapped out the drive. The restore failed - I got back a few non-DRM'd videos, and some game saves, but it lost network settings, the actual games (I'd better be able to re-download them, haven't tried yet), and the new 'Life With Playstation' thing.
I haven't been tempted to download videos yet... and I probably won't, now. Certainly not until after I install Linux on it (one reason I bumped up the drive in the first place.)

I upgraded my PS3 drive from 80 to 120, then 160, then 320 just the other day. Every time the backup & restore process restored everything; game saves, game data, images, songs, videos, and system settings, including network. The only thing it didn't copy (and I didn't expect it to) was the "Other OS" (Linux), but that's a quick re-install anyway.

Even if the file had no DRM at all, you'd only be able to download it once.

If the file had no "copy protection" you could transfer it to your PS4 when you dump your PS3, and then to your PS5 when you dump your PS4... even if you watched it on your PSP and your Playstation Wearable and Playstation Implant. Instead, look at these restrictions on backing up and restoring copy protected media:

If you perform any of the following operations after backing up, copyright-protected video files in the backup data may

Yesterday I rented "The Usual Suspects" as an HD rental. It cost $4.50. I feel I got my money's worth, since it would have cost me at LEAST that in gas/time/rental price to go to the video store to rent it. It expires today at around 4:00 pm, after which I'll delete it (if it doesn't delete itself first). The rental is good for up to 14 days after you rent it, but once you play it the first time within that 14 day period, you can only play it within the next 24 hours after that. Just a heads up for anyone renting - they do tell you this before you click "Confirm" on the purchase, however, so I didn't feel "taken".

I will say, however, that this ONE download per purchased movie stuff is utter BS. Have they learned nothing from the Steam/Valve model?

But more damning, I think, is that the selection absolutely SUCKS. You could not cobble together a more random selection of (mostly) shitty movies/TV shows if you tried. It's really pathetic. There are some gems, but most of it is utter shit. I guess their target demographic are pubescent teens who think Wil Farrell is funny and "Step Brothers" should be on AFI's Top 100 list. There are a couple of Kubrick films (Eyes Wide Shut and A Clockwork Orange) which add a heavy weighted value to the selection, but still...

If people pay money to support DRM products, this is exactly what they deserve. Maybe if enough people pay enough for this kind of low quality junk and then the DRM gods take it away from them, they will finally learn to not buy into the scheme. As long as the studios can see a revenue stream from this kind of crippled product they are not likely to deal with their customers on a more reasonable basis. So "hats of to Sony" for trying to help show the consumer just how bad DRM can be if you buy into it.

Seriously, not to be flamebait, but I have a Wii, and I can download.. uh.. wait.. GAMES!! and, the beauty is, if I delete it, I can download it again, for free, anytime, as long as it is on my console only.

That's the type of DRM I can live with. I mean, sure I wish I could load up my SD card and bring it to my friend's place who also has a Wii, but hey, you know, let's face it, I understand Why Nintendo stops me from going on with my SD card from machine to machine, and it's ok.

Now I don't get to play movies on my Wii.. boo hoo.. like I care, that's why I have a DVD player anyways. Beside, if the Wii ever went defective and it was my sole means of watching a movie, I would be in effect pretty damn bored!

Now, The PS3 let's you download movies only 1 time. That's Gestapo like DRM for you uh?:)

But who would want to download a movie for the PS3 anyways? especially with that type of DRM?

Better off buying a program like AnyDVD-HD which also support Blue-Ray and simply rent a movie and make a copy if you wish it.

I made the mistake of buying Warhawk online instead of retail. The problem is that my user account on the system is the only one tied to my PSN network login (of course) so if my kids log into their PS3 accounts, they can't even start the game. That means that they need to log on as me whenever they want to play, even offline.
XBox Live has a better system for DRM - purchases are tied to the serial number of the device that purchased them, ALONG WITH the userID of the purchaser, so the purchaser can go to a different device (friends house, replacement system) and as long as they're logged in still access the content, or anyone who's on the same system that originally made the purchase can access the content WITHOUT LOGGING IN TO XBOX LIVE.
This is a huge oversight on Sony's part and I really hope they fix it. For families with more than one game player it will never be acceptable to tell each member of the family to purchase the same game if they want to play it. They are shooting themselves in the foot with their own DRM for DLC.

This seems to be just for video rentals and purchases. Movie rentals annoyingly stay on your HD, even after the rental period is over - you have to manually delete them. I am assuming though if you rent the movie again in the future, it will let you have another download, or just reactivate it on the HD if you already have it downloaded. Have not really tried - $4.50 for a 24 hour download just seemed really high, and I only tried it to see one movie that they have yet to release on Blu-Ray.

The article makes it clear that this is just for movie purchaces. I have yet to make any, as HD stuff is only available for rental.

Trailers and gameplay videos seem to allow you unlimited downloads.

I have had one PS3 brick on me with the 2.42 firmware, and the one they replaced it with is starting to go out, and it looks like I may be replacing it as well before too long. However, GAMES and add-ons I have purchased seem to have let me have more than 2 downloads, as I keep so much on my PS3 I delete whatever I am not playing at the time, and redownload when I want to play again. Has always worked quite well.

It's not that hard. Steam is value-added DRM - which means the impetus to crack it is low. I've had pirated Half-Life, Half-Life 2 and Ep. 1, but Steam was easier than managing that (well, that and the games were worth every penny)

Steam has seen me through 3 computers and 8 OS reinstalls. I double-click a game and come back when it's 60% downloaded, and play it. That's worth money to me, even if it is stuck in my account and linked to their servers.

I don't see what's so hard about re-implementing Steam, aside from the fact that it doesn't allow the producer to double-dip (sell you a license when you try to copy it, but change it to a product when it breaks)

And I fear that's the crux of this whole thing - they're hoping that people will just re-buy.

The 360 is just as bad. I recently bought an Elite to replace my failed and just out of warranty original Premium unit and discovered that you couldn't re-download purchased Live Arcade games or game add-on content so I'm still having to use my old 20GB HD with it while the 120GB drive which came with the Elite sits gathering dust in a drawer.

You're exactly right. The PS3 is an amazing piece of hardware... for running folding@home and playing BluRays. Too bad it doesn't fare so well in the gaming department. Beside the fact that it has not proven to be technically superior in the sense that it has more impressive games than the Xbox 360, the controller is antiquated. The head of their ergonomics department should be fired. Microsoft got it right with the offset thumbsticks.

Every muffin you eat and want to replace means the farmers and bakers and shipping people need to get busy, and need to be paid for their efforts. A media company, however, doesn't have to invest in more worker hours or physical resources to give you another identical Mickey Mouse. So why should they be paid an equivalent amount for a digital duplicate?

Only one reason. Because people like you have been duped into thinking t